Is violating campaign finance laws reason for impeachment

a reply to: BlueAjah



he's not a billionaire, and yes, he looks like someone who needs hookers. it's all so damn funny.

Well it depends if they are a democrat or a repubicon. If it’s a democrat the right would not only want them impeached but also placed in prison. If it’s a rightwinger they would call it virtuous, and nominate them for a Nobel prize or something. reply to: Grambler

originally posted by: soundguy
Well it depends if they are a democrat or a repubicon. If it’s a democrat the right would not only want them impeached but also placed in prison. If it’s a rightwinger they would call it virtuous, and nominate them for a Nobel prize or something. reply to: Grambler

Cool can you show me the right wingers screaming to impeach trump for his campaign finance violations?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soundguy
Well it depends if they are a democrat or a repubicon. If it’s a democrat the right would not only want them impeached but also placed in prison. If it’s a rightwinger they would call it virtuous, and nominate them for a Nobel prize or something. reply to: Grambler

Cool can you show me the right wingers screaming to impeach trump for his campaign finance violations?

Ann Coulter, conservative Republican commentator and author of the book “In Trump We Trust,” reached peak Donald Trump frustration on Thursday morning when she tweeted, “At this point, who doesn’t want Trump impeached?” and said she'd prefer President Mike Pence if the promised border wall falls through.
www.newsweek.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Grambler

May have broke campaign finance law....how do we arrive at this? A gut feeling?

If Trump paid anyone for anything using his own money though his lawyer I'm not sure how that has anything to do with campaign funds...We are talking a small weekend getaway in cost for Trump... it's like a big tip...lol I bet he may have not even known at the time he paid it, though it was his money...I don't think he personally zeros out his checkbook.

My question that seems to never come up is why is this not treated as extortion as Daniels comes forward with as pay me or I will talk situation...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: notsure1


He takes a salary. What he does with it is his business, and certainly doesn't give him a free ticket to break finance laws, or violate the Emolument Clause, or to obstruct justice, for that matter.

Sure what finance laws did he break, What part of the Emolument Clause did he break, what justice did he obstruct etc etc...

As the OP suggests you can take everyone of these an apply them to Obama/Hillary too and there is a lot more factual truth and examples with them than Trump....

Obama ordered the Death of Americans without due process, shut down the FOIA completely for 8 years, Fast and Furious, stepped all over the Constitution and so on.. anyone of these today would have Trump strung up, but Obama had everyone in his administration's pockets so that every time they did break the law the FBI and other agencies waved their Jedi hand and said, nothing to see here... How else would Hillary be interviewed not under oath to prevent perjury while the report was already written in her favor...Holy crap...and we talk about paying a porn star to keep quite as a reason for impeachment.

a reply to: Grambler

Generally speaking, no. For one, it's not unusual for there to be campaign finance violations and fines paid by campaigns following presidential elections. They take in huge sums of money from hundreds of thousands if not millions of donors. In the case of the Obama campaign's 2008 violations, there were missing 48-hour notices for 1,300 donations (totaling $1.8 million out of a campaign that raised over a billion) that were received within 20 days of the election.

Secondly, not all campaign finance violations are the same. For example, the donations themselves were not illegal in the case of Obama campaign, the violation seems to be essentially a reporting lapse/oversight. Furthermore, no candidate would be expected to have personal knowledge over ever minute detail of the campaign's accounts and the actual violation here falls on the campaign treasurer.

In the case of Trump, the possibility is that campaign funds were directed by Trump himself to be used to repay Cohen for paying the hush money. The two don't seem all that comparable really — one's a mistake the other looks like it was done with corrupt intent.

That said, there's no way Trump would be impeached for this anyway.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

In the case of Trump, the possibility is that campaign funds were directed by Trump himself to be used to repay Cohen for paying the hush money. The two don't seem all that comparable really — one's a mistake the other looks like it was done with corrupt intent.

That said, there's no way Trump would be impeached for this anyway.

The problem I have is it doesn't even make sense... I'm not sure why Trump would even care, and I would bet his lawyer would pay it and just send his office the bill that then an accountant would pay with Trump not doing anything other than talking to his lawyer as to what happened. It is not like Trump has some secret access to campaign funds that no one can see as he reaches in and grabs a hand full of money to do with what he likes...a payment like this out of campaign funds would have had a large number of people involved even if it was possible to do, and I'm not sure if it was even possible.

a reply to: theantediluvian

In all seriousness, Trump started his campaign using his own money, then at some point, started to use campaign money. he isn't a paycheck to paycheck kind of person, regardless of how orange he is. So it seems at least to me, that the $130k that he paid the whore, would have come from his own money, or at the worst, from campaign money that was owed back to him. But it's unlikely that he was paying his attorney out of campaign money, so there just doesn't seem to be much here.

a reply to: Xtrozero


What's your point? That Trump can break the law because "whataboutism", or that he didn't break the law in the first place, in which case, "What's your point"?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero


What's your point? That Trump can break the law because "whataboutism", or that he didn't break the law in the first place, in which case, "What's your point"?

No he is not allowed to break the law...you listed a bunch and can list a 1000 more if you like, I just asked what ones did he break? By listing the ones you did, the assumption must be those are ones he broke, or did you just randomly pick them out of a book of laws.

a reply to: Xtrozero


Those are all things that Trump has been accused of, violations of election finance laws, violations of the Emolument Clause and obstruction of Justice. As per the title of thread: Is violating campaign finance laws reason for impeachment? they are all impeachable crimes, should evidence compel Congress to act.

Also, context is important, and the post you replied to was in response to another poster suggesting; "So what if he illegally funneled 130K, he doesn't take a salary!"....And, to that I say, "That doesn't give him a free pass to any of the crimes he's been accused of."

So what is the appropriate legal way to shut a ho up anyhow?

What is the best payment method?

a reply to: Grambler

I haven't read the thread so my apologies if someone else already linked this. But here's a link to a tweet from a sitting member of Congress about the potential crimes from this parituclar situation.

4 possible felonies from Rudy Giuliani admission: 1. $130k payment to Stormy was in-kind coordinated contribution above limits 2. Cohen was a straw donor used to cover up true source of contribution 3. False statements on financial disclosures 4. False statements on banking forms

twitter.com...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

How in the world would this be considered a "contribution"?

Of course Dems are going to twist things.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't read the thread so my apologies if someone else already linked this. But here's a link to a tweet from a sitting member of Congress about the potential crimes from this parituclar situation.

4 possible felonies from Rudy Giuliani admission: 1. $130k payment to Stormy was in-kind coordinated contribution above limits 2. Cohen was a straw donor used to cover up true source of contribution 3. False statements on financial disclosures 4. False statements on banking forms

twitter.com...

so stormy was giving Trump a contribution? Where I come from we call that getting laid. And when she got paid, she was getting paid for sex. Although that would be illegal on her part as well, so I'm sure she would prefer to keep the NDA story. Then Trump paid her out of his money, which I think he has a little more than $130k in the bank. It just seems like you are reaching a good bit to make this into something it isn't. If it makes you feel better, Trump isn't a very good person to trust with monogamy. I don't think he ever really was.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
So what is the appropriate legal way to shut a ho up anyhow?

What is the best payment method?

Ask Bill clinton..

a reply to: Grambler

It's only a big deal if Democrats break laws. Otherwise, it's just bad government.

There is simply no way that a President is going to be impeached for a campaign finance violation, even if it were proven that he did so.
Like you highlighted Obama was fined for it, but there was never a mention of impeachment.
This is just wishful thinking by the ever decreasing anti-Trump crowd. They haven't got Russian collusion or obstruction of justice to harp on about so for them it's a race to the bottom. If they have to, they'll go as low as calling for impeachment for a speeding ticket.
It's pure lunacy, driven from an election loss they simply can't get over.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't read the thread so my apologies if someone else already linked this. But here's a link to a tweet from a sitting member of Congress about the potential crimes from this parituclar situation.

4 possible felonies from Rudy Giuliani admission: 1. $130k payment to Stormy was in-kind coordinated contribution above limits 2. Cohen was a straw donor used to cover up true source of contribution 3. False statements on financial disclosures 4. False statements on banking forms

twitter.com...

Dude, he paid a blackmailing whore to keep her mouth shut (for once) just before the election, presumably because he knew whether it was true or false the media would run with it 24/7 to try and swing the election to Hillary. How is paying someone else a campaign contribution??? There is no felony in paying a whore not to make waves. Even if Cohen paid it and it was not from Trump it's still not a campaign contribution. It's just Trump's lawyer paying a whore to keep her mouth shut. What's confusing about this?